A complaint about the hoax-y elements of the Cold War in essay format by Eustace Mullins:

THE $5 TRILLION COLD WAR HOAXThe Phoenix Project May 21, 1996

ContentsI."SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THE COUNTRY"II.CHURCHILL LAUNCHES COLD WARIII.THE CONVERSION OF SENATOR ARTHUR VANDENBERGIV.THE FLOOZIES OF WASHINGTONV.HARRIMAN'S REPLYVI.THE FIRST VICTIMS OF THE COLD WARVII.THE EGGHEADSVIII.A PHONY WARIX.A METEORIC CAREER X.REMARKABLE HERITAGEXI.THE POLICY OF "CONTAINMENT"XII.THE MEN BEHIND CONTAINMENTXIII.TECHNIQUES OF THE COLD WARXIV.THE CIA RIDES TO THE RESCUEXV.EFFECTS OF THE COLD WAR

INTRODUCTIONPT Barnum said it for all time, "There's a sucker born every minute." For more than four decades, the American people have been terrorized, not by a foreign threat, but by their own government. In order for the Federal Reserve System central bankers to continue to loot the nation after the successful conclusion of the I Second World War, they had to invent a new threat. The only candidate was our erstwhile gallant ally, the Soviet Union. The central bank conspirators faced the task of continuing to mobilize the people against a terrible threat, taxing them heavily in order to save them from destruction.Today, we are burdened by a $5 trillion national debt. Coincidentally, that is the sum we have spent on "national defense" since 1945. The World Order billionaires launched a complex, long-term plan to demonize Soviet Russia. Overnight, they would undergo a sea change, from the darlings of the American political Establishment to a dangerous and possibly overwhelming enemy. In my researches of more than fifty years, I finally located the smoking gun which exposed this conspiracy, a little known article in the August 1977 issue of American Heritage magazine, "Who Started the Cold War?" by historian Charles L. Mee Jr., editor of Horizon magazine, and author of one of the first cold war books, Meeting at Potsdam.

I."SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THE COUNTRY"In this article, Mee writes that on Feb. 27, 1947, "President Truman met with Congressional leaders in the White House. Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson was present at the meeting, and Truman had him tell the Congressmen what was at stake. Acheson spoke for ten minutes, informing the legislators that nothing less than the survival of the whole of Western civilization was in the balance at that moment; he worked in references to ancient Athens, Rome, and the course of Western civilization and freedom since those times. The Congressmen were silent for a few moments, and then, at last. Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, a prominent Republican who had come to support an active foreign policy, spoke up. All this might be true, Vandenberg said, but, if the President wishes to sell his program to the American people, he would have to 'scare hell out of the country'. It was at that moment that the Cold War began in earnest for the United States."This is one of the most revealing statements in American history. This is the smoking gun which proves that the federal government used a terror campaign to frighten the American people into supporting four decades of Cold War spending on armaments. The initial campaign was the "atom bomb scare", which raged for some years; it finally lost its effectiveness, and was replaced by the ogre, based solely on falsified and invented CIA statistics, that Soviet Russia was the most terrifying military power, with the fastest growing economy, in the world. These two CIA claims were mutually exclusive; no nation could have the world's greatest military machine and at the same time support the world's fastest growing economy, but the statisticians successfully sold this scare story for years.

II.CHURCHILL LAUNCHES COLD WARThe Cold War, the Hegelian invention of Soviet Russia and the United States at each other's throats, the "free world" vs. the "slave empire", Capitalism vs. Communism, was the final triumph of dialectical materialism, also invented by the German philosopher, Hegel. He laid down the dictum that to rule the world, you create a problem; you find an antidote to that problem; and you throw the two conflicting theses against each other, to result in a consensus or resolution. This diabolical and cynical formula reached its apogee in the Cold War. Hopefully, we will not see another such travesty of history.Hard on the conclusion of the Second World War, the Colossus of the United States stood astride the entire world. With the world's largest economy, never touched by a single bomb or artillery shell throughout the war, the largest army, and a proud and victorious people, it was incredible that the United States could for a moment seriously regard the war-devastated Soviet Union as a threat. Stalin lost forty million people during the war; his nation was in rains. He desperately needed a breathing space in which to recover. Miraculously, the World Order invention of the Cold War came to his rescue. None other than Stalin's co-conspirator, Winston Churchill, was chosen to launch this new "problem".. Now unemployed, Churchill was desperate to get back into the limelight. At the invitation of President Truman, Churchill was brought to the United States to deliver a speech at little Fulton College, in Truman's home state of Missouri.On March 5, 1946, at Fulton, Churchill made his famous "Iron Curtain" speech. He warned that an "Iron Curtain" had descended upon Europe, the Communist enslavement of the Eastern European countries. He failed to mention that he and Franklin Delano Roosevelt had joined at Yalta to deliver Eastern Europe to Stalin, with Alger Hiss, the originator of the plan, beaming in the background. Not a single journalist, anywhere in the world, mentioned Churchill's overwhelming personal complicity in creating and maintaining the dire situation which he now publicly deplored.

III.THE CONVERSION OF SENATOR ARTHUR VANDENBERGOne of Washington's leading political strategists, Senator Arthur Vandenberg had warned his co-conspirators at the Feb. 27, 1947 White House meeting that to sell the prospective Cold War program, they would have to "scare hell out of the country". He had an interesting background. A millionaire newspaper publisher in Grand Rapids, Michigan (later to become famous as the home of President Gerald Ford), Vandenberg had been elected to the Senate in 192S. A rock-ribbed Republican, he voted against New Deal measures such as the Social Security Act. He was Republican minority leader, and Capitol Hill's leading isolationist. When the United Nations proposal came to Congress, no one in Washington doubted that Vandenberg would shoot it down.All of Washington was amazed when Senator Vandenberg rose on the Senate floor, on January 10, 194S, and called for the establishment of the United Nations. As George Stimpson, founder of the National Press Club, later explained to me, America's leading isolationist had become a rabid internationalist in a single night. A beautiful blonde agent from British Secret Intelligence Service had been sent to his room. After an all night political discussion, Senator Vandenberg awakened to become the new champion of the United Nations. Although a little known story, it epitomizes how things are accomplished in Washington, today as yesterday.This is the Senator who is described in the Dictionary of National Biography as "a jingoist and chauvinist who supported the aggressive foreign policies of Theodore Roosevelt and Taft." Franklin D. Roosevelt rewarded Vandenberg for his treachery by sending him as a special delegate to San Francisco with Alger Hiss to draft the United Nations Charter. The White House continued to shower gifts on Vandenberg, even going so far as to make his favorite nephew. General Hoyt Vandenberg, Commanding General of the United States Air Force.

IV.THE FLOOZIES OF WASHINGTONDuring our discussions at the National Press Club in 1948, the subject of Senator Arthur Vandenberg's overnight conversion to the congressional champion of the United Nations was examined in detail. We recalled a fellow agent of the blonde British Secret Service agent who accomplished this mission, one Kaye Summersby, who had been chosen to mollify General Eisenhower, Commanding General of the entire European Theater during the Second World War. Summersby's intelligence training included the arts of the ancient Byzantine hetaerae, who were skilled in the arts of "unendurable pleasure, indefinitely prolonged". With Summersby as his chauffeur, Eisenhower was delivered to small country hotels in England, while his adviser, the political commissar Capt. Edward M. M. Warburg, of the banking family, ran the war from London. The enraptured general notified his superior, George Marshall, that he was divorcing Mamie Eisenhower to marry the princess of endless delights, which of course was never in the cards. Marshall promptly reported this development to President Truman, who was furious, notifying Ike that it was out of the question (Plain Speaking, by Merle Miller). Kaye ended her days as a permanent house guest on a Rothschild estate on Long Island.Another British agent, Pamela Digby Churchill, married to Winston Churchill's son, later married Averill Harriman, the unofficial foreign minister of the United States. Harriman's exploits in travelling the world, instructing the heads of nations in how to conduct their affairs, was legendary. He became the subject of a series of novels by Upton Sinclair, chronicling the feats of one Lanny Budd (Harriman) throughout the world. Harriman spent the last two years of World War II at Stalin's Kremlin headquarters, dictating to Stalin how he should conduct the war. After his death, Pamela Churchill Harriman took over the Democratic National Committee. She is now our Ambassador to Paris, the most desired appointment in our foreign service, presiding over 1100 employees.

V.HARRIMAN'S REPLYWhen Charles T. Mee Jr.'s historic article appeared in American Heritage magazine in August of 1977, the editors notified Averill Harriman and gave him the chance to reply in the same issue. Harriman's response was headlined "We Can't Do Business with Stalin". The Communist dictator who had been Harriman's lackey throughout the war was now dismissed as uncooperative! Harriman recounts in great detail the repressive policies of Stalin towards the captive nations in Eastern Europe (policies which Harriman himself had initiated), and goes on to denounce Mee's astounding report as "revisionist". "Mr. Mee has made his own sketchy revision of standard revisionist doctrine," quoting Mee's statement that "the Cold War served everybody's purpose." Truman needed an excuse for deficit spending, because without it he could not have kept the American economy busy and productive. Thus he waged a Cold War, after the hot war was won, to justify continued deficit spending. With the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, the encouragement of American multinational companies, and a set of defense treaties that came finally to encompass the world, he institutionalized it."As Charles T. Mee Jr. points out in his article, Stalin was a principal beneficiary of the Cold War. " Stalin needed the Cold War, not to venture out into the world again after an exhausting war, but to discipline his restless people at home. He had need of that ancient stratagem of monarchs the threat of an implacable external enemy to be used to unite his own people in Russia." Mee also names Winston Churchill as a prime suspect in the Cold War conspiracy. He states that Churchill "emerged from World War II with a ruined empire, irretrievably in debt, an empire losing its colonies and headed inevitably toward bankruptcy. Churchill's scheme for saving Great Britain was to arrange to have America and Russia quarrel, while America and Russia quarreled, England would as American diplomats delicately put it 'lead' Europe". As had been the case for some three hundred years, "leading" Europe and the United States meant that Great Britain would make frequent use of its secret weapon, the Secret Intelligence Service. Its powers included, as we have seen, reversing the entire foreign policy of the United States overnight, from isolationism to an abject embracing of the United Nations; making the most prominent American general and future President a "love slave" of a ruthless intelligence agent, and much, much more, most of which we shall never know.

VI.THE FIRST VICTIMS OF THE COLD WARThe first victims of the Cold War were not soldiers; they were American politicians who were reluctant to embrace the new campaign. The first casualty was elder statesman Henry Stimson, who wrote a memo to President Truman in the autumn of 1945, cited by Mee as the cause of Stimson's disappearance from Washington. Stimson's memo denounced the projected Cold War as a serious error, and called for "satisfactory relations" with Russia. Henry Wallace, Secretary of Commerce, also protested against the Cold War, he was allowed to resign. Mee identifies the "comers" in Washington as those who were quick to latch onto the Cold War as "the wave of the future". Those who tended to believe in an aggressive attitude toward Russia, were spotted, and promoted young men such as John Foster Dulles and Dean Rusk. George Kennan, then in the American Embassy in Moscow, was discovered after he sent a perfervid 8,000 word telegram back to Washington. "We have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with U.S. there can be no permanent Modus Vivendi, that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state be broken." Mee mentions that, in his memoirs, Kennan says that he now looks back on his cable 'with horrified amusement'. "At the time, however, he was ideal for Truman's use, and he was recalled from Moscow and made chairman of the State Department's Policy Planning Committee, or as the New York Times called him, 'America's global planner'."

VII.THE EGGHEADSCritics of the new Cold War foreign policy quickly found a nickname for its architects, "the eggheads". Like George Kennan, they were liberal intellectuals, often prematurely bald, and unanimous in their dislike of the American people, whom they hated and feared, and their Constitution. Their goal, which they now seem to have achieved, was to liberate the federal government, which Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers had written to "bind down the government with the chains of the Constitution". While ostensibly following an "anti-Communist" policy, the eggheads never forswore their dedication to Marxism, and its monolithic state.During the four decades of the Cold War, Hollywood, which never failed to bolster the goals of the Cold War architects, reserved its bitter scorn for "red-blooded Americans" who stood for flag and country. While forbearing from ever presenting lifelong Communists in a deprecating way, Hollywood made films deriding "anti-Communists" as flag-waving American Legion boobs, a stance which it continues to this day. If any one of the eggheads and their Hollywood lackeys were to be called a "patriot", they would be overcome with shame.

VIII.A PHONY WARDuring most of its history, the Cold War was a propaganda war, in which the opponents hurled invectives at each other. However, the military-industrial complex cannot make billions of dollars from propaganda; there had to be occasions of real shooting. We endured the Korean War and the Vietnam War, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, while Soviet Russia did not lose a man in either war. Both Russia and the United States were careful to have the scenes of battle take place thousands of miles from their own lands, in poverty-stricken countries such as Korea and Vietnam. We had the Cuban missile crisis, a soap opera in which the media convinced Americans that they had been on the brink of atomic destruction, being saved just before the bombs were launched by the "incredible diplomatic skills" of John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev, neither of whom before or after this crisis had ever shown the slightest skill at diplomacy. The Berlin Wall was built, to prevent all of its population from fleeing the desolation of Communist East Germany. The eggheads greeted the Berlin Wall with praise. President John F. Kennedy made a special trip to Germany to put his seal of approval on the Berlin Wall, and to reassure the Communists that the United States would not remove it. And we never did. It was the Germans themselves, driven beyond endurance, who ripped it down, much to the consternation of our eggheads in Washington.

IX.A METEORIC CAREERAlthough few Americans recognize the name of George Kennan, he not only was the source of the nickname "egghead", he also was the bureaucrat entrusted with the maintenance of the Gold War in Washington for many years. He was named after his uncle, George Kennan, who spent many years traveling in Czarist Russia on "missionary work" for the world Communist movement. He was entrusted with many millions of dollars by Jacob Schiff, known as "A Prince in Israel", who was born in the Rothschild house in Frankfurt, and who, according to his grandson, John Schiff, had spent twenty-two-million dollars of his, personal funds to bring about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Most of this money was spent on revolutionary propaganda, which Kennan, with journalistic credentials, distributed throughout Russia. Some historians credit George Kennan as the pivotal force in the Bolshevik Revolution, pointing out that it was his distributing of thousands of revolutionary leaflets to officers in the Czar's Army which turned them against the regime and led to the downfall of the Czar.George Kennan also worked with Jacob Schiff in financing Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. The Japanese government decorated Kennan with the Gold War Medal, and the Order of the Sacred Treasure. (The World Order, by Eustace Mullins, p. 64). Schiff instigated this war to strike a blow against the alleged oppression of Jews in Russia, and to create a governmental crisis by which the Communists could seize power. The "1905 Revolution" failed miserably; the Communists had to wait twelve more years, with Schiff's continued support, before they could seize power.

X.REMARKABLE HERITAGETo those who have studied the history of the twentieth century, it is not at all paradoxical that the American government should have entrusted its foreign policy towards Russia to someone named after the man who is credited with bringing about the Bolshevik Revolution. When Franklin D. Roosevelt, repaying Communist support which gave him victory in his presidential race against Herbert Hoover, promptly extended diplomatic recognition to Stalin, it was George Kennan who was chosen to accompany Ambassador William Bullitt to Moscow to reopen the American Embassy. It was George Kennan who wrote the notorious 8,000-word "long telegram" sent from Moscow to Washington on Dec. 22, 1946, where, as he points out, it caused a sensation, and led to his being summoned back to Washington to head the newly created post of head of Policy Planning.Kennan states in his memoirs that he had the only office directly adjoining the office of Secretary of State General George Marshall, and that it was lie, Kennan, who actually drafted the text of the Marshall Plan.

XI.THE POLICY OF "CONTAINMENT"However, it is as "X", the anonymous author of an article which appeared in the July, 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, titled "The Sources of Soviet Conduct", that George Kennan continues to be remembered in Washington. This article laid down the principle of "containment" which was to be official U.S. policy towards Russia for the remainder of the Cold War. No wonder the New York Times called Kennan "America's global planner". Henry Kissinger, who inherited the Kennan policy of the Cold War, wrote in White House Years, p. 135, that "George Kennan came as close to authoring the diplomatic doctrine of his era as any diplomat in our history."Paul Kennedy, in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, defined the "policy of containment" as follows: "The view from Washington was that a master plan for world Communist domination was unfolding and needed to be 'contained'." Walter Lippmann, who was a one-man think tank in Washington for fifty years, and an adviser to many Presidents, adopted Kennan's policy in his influential The Cold War; a Study in United States Foreign Policy, as America's senior elder statesman.Kennan's "containment'' policy was just that; that the Soviet Union and world Communism would be contained, but never openly challenged or fought against. It was a permanent guarantee that the captive nations of Eastern Europe, which had been delivered to Stalin by Roosevelt, Churchill and Alger Hiss at Yalta, would never be liberated from Communism. An organization championing the captive nations was for many years the most hated and derided group in Washington, Composed of a few Congressmen from Chicago and Cleveland who had strong ethnic backing from Poles, Czechs and other Eastern Europe countries, it was a political embarrassment for many years to the oligarchs of the Cold War.

XII.THE MEN BEHIND CONTAINMENTIn his memoirs, Kennan mentions that one of the principal sponsors of his containment policy was then Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, who later, as Secretary of Defense, became one of a long list of "Washington suicides", a special category a la Vince Foster. Although published in Foreign Affairs, a magazine read only by the Elite, it was quickly taken up by Arthur Krock of the New York Times, the most influential journalist in Washington. He reprinted the article in the New York Times, describing it as the "most important foreign relations document of the century". A shorter version of the containment article was then published in Life magazine. It had now inundated the country.Kennan states in his memoirs, "I emphatically deny the paternity of any efforts to invoke the doctrine of containment today." He downplays both the "long telegram" and the article by "X", claiming that they have been "misunderstood". He modestly ignores the fact that he laid down the policy which our government has followed for forty years. His reward was a post as professor at the elite think tank in Princeton, the Institute for Advanced Study, where he has worked since 1950, with interim appointments as Ambassador to Russia and to Yugoslavia. He also was awarded the Albert Einstein Peace Prize, presumably for avoiding a Third World War by his policy of containment (my studies have shown that a Third World War between Russia and the United States was never seriously considered by anyone in authority). It was only a "War Game".

XIII.TECHNIQUES OF THE COLD WARThe government propaganda techniques by which the American people were terrorized for some forty years began with the dire threat of nuclear annihilation. School children went through daily drills of falling to the floor in terror of the atomic bomb which would destroy their school. Their parents built backyard "bomb shelters" stocked with food and water. Because "scientific studies" showed that the radiation peril would last for at least five hundred years, the survivors apparently expected to spend that much time in their shelters. Nationwide philosophical debates ensued as to whether the survivors, huddled in their shelters after the blast, should open the door to neighbors or to "minorities" who had neglected to build bomb shelters, or whether they should shoot those who battered down the doors to get food. Hollywood loyally produced many movies about the coming atomic debacle, such as Dr. Strangelove, in which insane fascists were determined to use the bomb to destroy the civilized world; War Games, in which a mad computer tried to trick the United States and Russia into destroying each other; and a steady stream of films depicting "Bette Davises" as little old librarians who were determined that students should be allowed to read the works of Karl Marx.

XIV.THE CIA RIDES TO THE RESCUEAfter years of exposure to the imminent threat of being vaporized in an atomic blast, Americans began to ignore the threat; many of them bulldozed their bomb shelters into swimming pools. It was obvious to our masters that new techniques of terror had to be developed. The Central Intelligence Agency now became the vehicle of mass terrorism. It became known as "the Company" under the leadership of stock promoter Bill Casey. He became highly skilled at peddling alarming statistics about the threat of Communism to Congress, who hastily voted vast increases in the "defense" budget. The oligarchs abandoned the now worn out doctrine of nuclear annihilation. There would be no need to spend two-hundred-and-fifty-billion dollars a year on tanks, guns and airplanes if they were all to be vaporized by a single bomb. The defense budget had been brought from a low of $13 billion in 1947 to a continuous budget in the hundreds of billions. With its top secret budget of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, never to be examined by anyone, the CIA sent its own James Bonds all over the world usually to attack and overthrow "anti-Communist" governments and "dictators" such as Ferdinand Marcos, who had been indiscreet in their denunciations of Communism. The CIA hired hundreds of journalists to write books and articles promoting its version of the Cold War, always at the highest prevailing rates.

XV.EFFECTS OF THE COLD WARThe effect on both Russia and the United States of the Cold War conspirators has been devastating. Russia's economy is in a state of collapse, with no improvement in sight. The United States has been looted; its infrastructure, its roads, bridges and other assets need many billions in immediate repair. We have the $5 trillion Cold War debt; but the most destructive effect on our nation is the Cold War's effect on our morality.The years of being terrorized by the atomic threat had a very destructive effect on morality. If we were to be vaporized at any time, it seemed worthwhile to seize the moment, to take pleasure, money and any other rewards while they were available, without (bought for the consequences, since there would be no consequences. We have now endured the effects of this poisonous doctrine for several generations.The effect of the CIA propaganda lies about the "great Soviet Union" which might take over the world at any moment has been equally destructive. When conservative economist Paul Craig Roberts landed in Moscow during the height of the CIA propaganda campaign, he was stunned to find that Soviet Russia had "a Third World economy". I had proved in my writings that the United States taxpayer had been subsidizing the Soviet Union since 1917. In fact, Americans have been living a lie for four decades, the lie that we were in dire peril from "the Communist threat". This lie has been demoralizing; it has placed us on the brink of bankruptcy; and it poses the challenge to us: When are we going to get rid of our Cold War conspirators? They must pay the price for the destruction they have wrought on our nation. We must drive them out of every office; bring them to trial for their high treason; and restore the Republic which our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. It is this task not sad jokes about "balancing the budget" which will determine whether this nation will survive to the twenty-first century.

Eustace Mullins wrote:The Berlin Wall was built, to prevent all of its population from fleeing the desolation of Communist East Germany. The eggheads greeted the Berlin Wall with praise. President John F. Kennedy made a special trip to Germany to put his seal of approval on the Berlin Wall, and to reassure the Communists that the United States would not remove it. And we never did. It was the Germans themselves, driven beyond endurance, who ripped it down, much to the consternation of our eggheads in Washington.

I've spoken to people who passed from West to East and back again so I know the border guards were no joke but the fact that the wall "fell" on 9/11/89 (European date display) suggests it was a "controlled" falling.

The Soviet Union doesn't exist now. I suppose we think of Russia as what's left. Russia is again mooted as a "foe".Amongst the alternative websites , "Russia Today" is regarded as something "good". There are those, myself included, who believe it a limited hangout.

What RT doesn't say or hold in common with Western MSM I find interesting. It promotes the Al Qaeda fiction. To my knowledge it hasn't given any more than a passing comment to 9/11 as an inside job and it hasn't to my knowledge tackled the Apollo Hoax. In it's financial critiquing (Max Keiser) it has some great guests on but doesn't name names - never heard the Rothschilds slammed. Plus Max Keiser recommends the gold standard. Bill Still "The Money Masters" was Keiser's guest a few days ago - so RT didn't censor Still's fiat currency proposal.

More than anything if Russia Today is a genuine alternative viewpoint to the slimy BBC, why do the TPTB allow us to watch it through our free-view boxes ?

"Intellectuals" are fond of mouthing clichés like "The conspiracy theory is often tempting. However, it is overly simplistic." To ascribe absolutely everything that happens to the machinations of a small group of power hungry conspirators is overly simplistic. But, in our opinion nothing is more simplistic than doggedly holding onto the accidental view of major world events.

In most cases Liberals simply accuse all those who discuss the conspiracy of being paranoid. "Ah, you right wingers," they say, "rustling every bush, kicking over every rock, looking for imaginary boogeymen." Then comes the coup de grace-labeling the conspiratorial theory as the "devil theory of history." The Liberals love that one. Even though it is an empty phrase, it sounds so sophisticated!

With the leaders of the academic and communications world assuming this sneering attitude towards the conspiratorial (or cause and effect) theory of history, it is not surprising that millions of innocent and well-meaning people, in a natural desire not to appear naive, assume the attitudes and repeat the cliches of the opinion makers. These persons, in their attempt to appear sophisticated, assume their mentors' air of smug superiority even though they themselves have not spent five minutes in study on the subject of international conspiracy.

…

Indeed, difficult as this is to believe, such is the case. Like Columbus, we are faced with the task of convincing you that the world is not flat, as you have been led to believe all your life, but, instead, is round [ ]. We are going to present evidence that what you call "Communism" is not run from Moscow or Peking, but is an arm of a bigger conspiracy run from New York, London and Paris. The men at the apex of this movement are not Communists in the traditional sense of that term. They feel no loyalty to Moscow of Peking. They are loyal only to themselves and their undertaking. And these men certainly do not believe in the clap-trap pseudo-philosophy of Communism. They have no intention of dividing their wealth. Socialism is a philosophy which conspirators exploit, but in which only the naive believe. Just how financecapitalism is used as the anvil and Communism as the hammer to conquer the world will be explained in this book.

The concept that Communism is but an arm of a larger conspiracy has become increasingly apparent throughout the author's journalistic investigations. He has had the opportunity to interview privately four retired officers who spent their careers high in military intelligence. Much of what the author knows he learned from them. And the story is known to several thousand others. High military intelligence circles are well aware of this network. In addition, the-author has interviewed six men who have spent considerable time as investigators for Congressional committees. In 1953, one of these men, Norman Dodd, headed the Reece Committee's investigation of tax-freefoundations. When Mr. Dodd began delving into the role of international high finance in the world revolutionary movement, the investigation was killed on orders from the Eisenhower occupied White House. According to Mr. Dodd, it is permissible to investigate the radical bomb throwers in the streets, but when you begin to trace their activities back to their origins in the "legitimate world," the political iron curtain slams down.

You can believe anything you want about Communism except that it is a conspiracy run by men from the respectable world. People will often say to an active anti-Communist: "I can understand your concern with Communism, but the idea that a Communist conspiracy is making great inroads in the United States is absurd. The American people are anti-Communist. They're not about to buy Communism. It's understandable to be concerned about Communism in Africa or Asia or South America with their tremendous poverty, ignorance and disease. But to be concerned about Communism in the United States where the vast majority of people have no sympathy with it whatsoever is a misspent concern."

On the face of it, that is a very logical and plausible argument. The American people are indeed anti-Communist. Suppose you were to lay this book down right now, pick up a clipboard and head for the nearest shopping center to conduct a survey on Americans' attitudes about Communism. "Sir," you say to the first prospect you encounter, "we would like to know if you are for or against Communism?"

Most people would probably think you were putting them on. If we stick to our survey we would find that ninety-nine percent of the people are anti-Communist. We probably would be hard put to find anybody who would take an affirmative stand for Communism.

So, on the surface it appears that the charges made against anti-Communists concerned with the internal threat of Communism are valid. The American people' are not pro-Communist. But before our imaginary interviewee walks away in disgust with what he believes is a hokey survey, you add: "Sir, before you leave there are a couple of other questions I would like to ask. You won't find these quite so insulting or ludicrous." Your next question is: "What is Communism? Will you define it, please?"

Immediately a whole new situation has developed. Rather than the near unanimity previously found, we now have an incredible diversity of ideas. There are a multitude of opinions on what Communism is. Some will say: "Oh, yes, Communism. Well, that's a tyrannical brand of socialism." Others will maintain "Communism as it was originally intended by KarlMarx was a good idea [ ]. But it has never been practiced and the Russians have loused it up." A more erudite type might proclaim: "Communism is simply a rebirth of Russian imperialism."

If perchance one of the men you ask to define Communism happened to be a politicalscienceprofessor from the local college, he might well reply: "You can't ask 'what is Communism?' That is a totally simplistic question about an extremely complex situation. Communism today, quite unlike the view held by the right wing extremists in America, is not an international monolithic movement. Rather, it is a polycentric, fragmented, nationalistic movement deriving its character through the charismas of its various national leaders. While, of course, there is the welding of Hegelian dialectics with Feuerbachian materialism held in common by the Communist parties generally, it is a monumental oversimplification to ask 'what is Communism.' Instead you should ask: What is the Communism of Mao Tse-tung? What is the Communism of the late Ho Chi Minh, or Fidel Castro or Marshal Tito?"

If you think we are being facetious here, you haven't talked to a political science professor lately [ ]. For the above is the prevailing view on our campuses, not to mention in our State Department.

Whether you agree or disagree with any of these definitions, or, as may well be the case, you have one of your own, one thing is undeniable. No appreciable segment of the anti-Communist American public can agree on just what it is that they are against. Isn't that frightening? Here we have something that almost everybody agrees is bad, but we' cannot agree on just what it is we are against.

How would this work in a football game, for example? Can you imagine how effective the defense of a football team would be if the front four could not agree with the linebackers who could not agree with the corner backs who could not agree with the safety men who could not agree with the assistant coaches who could not agree with the head coach as to what kind of defense they should put up against the offense being presented? The obvious result would be chaos. You could take a sand lot team and successfully pit them against the Green Bay Packers if the Packers couldn't agree on what it is they are opposing. That is academic. The first principle in any encounter, whether it be football or war (hot or cold), is: Know your enemy. The American people do not know their enemy. Consequently, it is not strange at all that for three decades we have been watching one country of the world after another fall behind the Communist curtain.

In keeping with the fact that almost everybody seems to have his own definition of Communism, we are going to give you ours, and then we will attempt to prove to you that it is the only valid one. Communism: AN INTERNATIONAL, CONSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED AIM - GLOBALCONQUEST.

I used to believe that there was this big competition between the two superpowers. But when I read about the Soviet Union(SU), I wondered if it ever posed the slightest threat to the Anglo-American empire.

In the late 1800's Russia was the largest exporter of grains in the world. During the cold war, disastrous communist farm management meant Russia was reliant on American and other Western nations giving Russia shiploads of food.

In 1987 the state of the art Russian car was the exact same model as produced in 1957. Sadly, the Soviets got the plans and industrial equipment for that 1957 car from FIAT - who was scrapping its old production lines. After 30 years the Soviets had not made any advances in auto technology at all - and from what I have read, never were able to produce the industrial equipment needed for mass scale production.

The idea that this same country could be rocketing around the stars & building this huge fleet of state of the art submarines.. seems ridiculous. At a minimum, being reliant on American generosity in giving it tanker ship after tanker ship of free food - what sort of bargaining position would this country have at 'summits.'

Interesting. Well, asking rhetorical questions like that you might get blindsided by an official answer that doesn't treat the question rhetorically at all. Whether that satisfies you or you continue asking questions is like a test they constantly put us through.

You see example talking heads and pundits with supposedly "difficult" questions getting pacified and deflated, as a display for us, on television "commentary" programs that just need to fill the air with something that resembles meaningful conversations being resolved. This is how they train us lazy folks at home how to have conversations about these subjects.

Unfortunately, sometimes what it takes to see through that, as you have, is a kind of logical intuition when trying to actually make the pieces fit together. Then, you may feel that the stories only seem meaningful in the sense that people believe them. You get the sense that these enormous caked on stories are being oozed out by a few fearful or powerful men who are trusted in their position to explain what's going on and that story will cascade completely, like a thick syrup, to cover every official channel that points to them and then boasts of themselves being a reliable source of information because they share the same stink.

If anyone actually gets right up to these sphincters of human beings, you find their power is completely artificial. It is just popularity. The command of attention. You can guess that's why "News Anchors" and "pundits" are hired: they recognize in themselves some inherent relationship to people's attention and, apparently being empty vessels with no strong humanitarian convictions of their own, they find it rewarding to suck up to the slime and be thought of as trusted fellow humans. The media is largely to blame for the entire "Cold War" scare that doesn't exist. It's like the old saying, "if soldiers stopped signing up ..."

Such cowards these journalists have been made into they can't even question the most obvious shit we post about on CluesForum, and they content themselves to pick at average people like vultures. Just read the snark attitude with (or blind loyalty to) average people that journalists interview in local papers. Some locals get their story told and some don't, depending on ... what, exactly? Whether that journalist enjoyed their coffee in the morning? Whether they even respect the person they're interviewing? At that human-to-human level, it's a psychological game journalism has completely failed, and which the psychopaths play like an old piano. That is how we must assume the "Cold War" was even created in the first place. It was never real, but a test of the psychotics' power to prop up corrupt States.

Well, how about if media folks were willing to actually do research and insist — as a front united by its humanity — on putting claimants in their place? Public detectives is more like what we need in place of these useless pretty-face talking head teleprompter "journalists" that don't journal and "politicians" that don't care a lick for people.

Hoi wrote:It's like the old saying, "if soldiers stopped signing up ...Well, how about if media folks were willing to actually do research and insist — as a front united by its humanity — on putting claimants in their place? Public detectives is more like what we need in place of these useless pretty-face talking head teleprompter "journalists" that don't journal and "politicians" that don't care a lick for people."

I have been thinking of a more general idea: What if people stopped voting? (I personally no longer vote). What if people stopped seeing themselves as part of this artificial construct called state? The state assumes that we are part of the contract tying us to their fiction. If we stopped viewing ourselves as citizens, their artificial construct with all of its rules made especially for us will no longer apply. it's a matter of belief. The belief that we are the labels that they have defined for us in their laws. The label "citizen" , for example, is a loaded word pregnant with all sorts of responsibilities that the state believes we owe it. We embrace the label and then in any case invented by the state against us we have automatically testified against ourselves by simply accepting the label. We are not viewed as men/women but as a source of labor, or creativity to be exploited for the benefit of the owners of this thing called state. We don't get anything from the state. The state gets everything from us. People believe that the politicians are supposed to care for the people. The politicians care to execute the agenda set in front of them by the "real owners" (as George Carlin would say) of these artificial constructs worldwide. We get nothing from the state except orders to pay up or else. So they (the real owners) create fear, fear external to them and to us, fear of the foreign invader, fear of terrorism, fear of nuclear bombs... Whereas the real terror comes from the state itself in the form of arbitrary tyrannical rules and regulations. They never stop demanding more and more of our labor, our property, or our creativity. At the same time they continually restrict our freedoms. The 'journalists" take care of distracting people with fake news and propagating the fear agenda.

Hoi wrote:It's like the old saying, "if soldiers stopped signing up ...Well, how about if media folks were willing to actually do research and insist — as a front united by its humanity — on putting claimants in their place? Public detectives is more like what we need in place of these useless pretty-face talking head teleprompter "journalists" that don't journal and "politicians" that don't care a lick for people."

I have been thinking of a more general idea: What if people stopped voting? (I personally no longer vote). What if people stopped seeing themselves as part of this artificial construct called state? The state assumes that we are part of the contract tying us to their fiction. If we stopped viewing ourselves as citizens, their artificial construct with all of its rules made especially for us will no longer apply. it's a matter of belief. The belief that we are the labels that they have defined for us in their laws. The label "citizen" , for example, is a loaded word pregnant with all sorts of responsibilities that the state believes we owe it. We embrace the label and then in any case invented by the state against us we have automatically testified against ourselves by simply accepting the label. We are not viewed as men/women but as a source of labor, or creativity to be exploited for the benefit of the owners of this thing called state. We don't get anything from the state. The state gets everything from us. People believe that the politicians are supposed to care for the people. The politicians care to execute the agenda set in front of them by the "real owners" (as George Carlin would say) of these artificial constructs worldwide. We get nothing from the state except orders to pay up or else. So they (the real owners) create fear, fear external to them and to us, fear of the foreign invader, fear of terrorism, fear of nuclear bombs... Whereas the real terror comes from the state itself in the form of arbitrary tyrannical rules and regulations. They never stop demanding more and more of our labor, our property, or our creativity. At the same time they continually restrict our freedoms. The 'journalists" take care of distracting people with fake news and propagating the fear agenda.

I hope I am not far off the subject.

Couldn't have put it better myself, and pretty much what I've been saying for several years. It's "census" time here again in Ireland, I had one of their bully/terrorists at my door the other night, I didn't answer at my better-half's request. Last time it turned ugly with the interloper throwing the "census form" at me because I refused to give my "name" or accept the "form" from him - all this while he was trespassing on private property. And sheep who count themselves. They must love that!

Hoi wrote:It's like the old saying, "if soldiers stopped signing up ...Well, how about if media folks were willing to actually do research and insist — as a front united by its humanity — on putting claimants in their place? Public detectives is more like what we need in place of these useless pretty-face talking head teleprompter "journalists" that don't journal and "politicians" that don't care a lick for people."

I have been thinking of a more general idea: What if people stopped voting? (I personally no longer vote). What if people stopped seeing themselves as part of this artificial construct called state? The state assumes that we are part of the contract tying us to their fiction. If we stopped viewing ourselves as citizens, their artificial construct with all of its rules made especially for us will no longer apply. it's a matter of belief. The belief that we are the labels that they have defined for us in their laws. The label "citizen" , for example, is a loaded word pregnant with all sorts of responsibilities that the state believes we owe it. We embrace the label and then in any case invented by the state against us we have automatically testified against ourselves by simply accepting the label. We are not viewed as men/women but as a source of labor, or creativity to be exploited for the benefit of the owners of this thing called state. We don't get anything from the state. The state gets everything from us. People believe that the politicians are supposed to care for the people. The politicians care to execute the agenda set in front of them by the "real owners" (as George Carlin would say) of these artificial constructs worldwide. We get nothing from the state except orders to pay up or else. So they (the real owners) create fear, fear external to them and to us, fear of the foreign invader, fear of terrorism, fear of nuclear bombs... Whereas the real terror comes from the state itself in the form of arbitrary tyrannical rules and regulations. They never stop demanding more and more of our labor, our property, or our creativity. At the same time they continually restrict our freedoms. The 'journalists" take care of distracting people with fake news and propagating the fear agenda.

I hope I am not far off the subject.

Couldn't have put it better myself, and pretty much what I've been saying for several years. It's "census" time here again in Ireland, I had one of their bully/terrorists at my door the other night, I didn't answer at my better-half's request. Last time it turned ugly with the interloper throwing the "census form" at me because I refused to give my "name" or accept the "form" from him - all this while he was trespassing on private property. And sheep who count themselves. They must love that!

Yup, gotta agree with this. Belief is the governor of Personal Freedom. The belief structure is everything in that it is the personal prison, either handed down to you unwittingly, or adopted via the various hijacks. Great essay, great comments. I really appreciate the high-level critical thinking that goes on here.

I was fortunate in a way that even as a child I thought democracy was an absurdly stupid idea. Nothing in the real world could work like that. Imagine if the military was some sort of democracy where the rank and file, retirees and their families determined who would get promotions.. and then the people could make important decisions regarding financial, let alone strategic matters.

It wouldn't even make sense for people to vote on things that they don't understand. My friends were trying to convince me on Facebook to help them in their socialist campaign to demand the state government increase wages for nurses. So I asked them, well what does the median nurse make in income right now & what is the loaded cost per hour with the benefits and pension package costs. These are college educated people, and they were just dumbfounded. So I went on, how can I decide whether nurses should be paid more, if I do not know what they currently make?

But even if it wasn't just a kabuki theatre.. as 1 in a million votes I am powerless in a mathematical sense. And a politician can simply promise one thing and do another. The votes may or may not actually be counted. This is the circle of control. People spend 99% of their time worrying about things they have 0 control over. And 1% of their time working on what they do control. (in fact the things they don't control cause the worry - as if you do control it, you simply change it). Sadly for them, they would have to overcome their own egos, they like believing that they have the power in politics. That their voice can make a difference, and that it is important to convince their friends to vote this way or that.

And here is the thing; I have paid no attention whatsoever to local, state and even national elections for 20 years. And despite seeing friends posting scary sounding rhetoric from politicians - life in my city, including the economy look pretty much exactly the same as 20 years before. The rich - still getting richer. And the poor, still waiting for that free stuff the politicians promised them.

Real democracy is real when people's lives are connected in community, and that has a limited scope. If a real large-scale democracy will happen, it's not going to be from so many strangers swooping in from other parts and claiming they can represent local interests. That's a very very rare kind of person. Not the dime-a-dozen politicians.

But voting in politics is like playing games in a casino. Everyone hopes if they haven't struck the jackpot with a really caring politician from out of the blue, they can somehow will the one they got into being a responsible representative. Is that like trying to will your plastic chip into a million dollar bill in a rigged game? (The scam of money itself notwithstanding!)

The issue is that not every community produces good model people. And you can't really in good conscience send what you consider "model people" into a community; that's colonialism.

There seems to be a subconscious belief in the populace that technology will solve the problem of our lack of good willing leaders. What we really need is better ways to opt out of a shit system when good leadership is so frequently scaled down by the removal/retirement/forced change/death of someone that fit a role well. Ways of opting out and having a society be more flexible are things you and me and every other anarchist can develop little by little, through patient peaceful argument about this whole situation we're in.

We don't get anything from the state. The state gets everything from us.

That can be true. It's largely, extremely, more true than it ever was. But before the State problem, there were apparently even worse problems (or the same problem under different names). I could be wrong or misguided, but I think there's little wrong with a good deal that satisfies involved parties. I think meeting frequently to negotiate prevents breakdowns, assumptions, etc. There are cases where people being good can reach into a seething corrupt community because of cross cultural pollination brought about by initial optimism that introduced agreements to form a State.

We've created many ways of making States, and those frequently corrupt very quickly. We need a way to dissolve States. This will create better incentive for them to be fair deals and form over better things than mutual corruption of conspiring community clowns.

I can't think of a State right now that is offering a really amazing outstanding "deal". Most seem to offer a condescending, self-inflicted violence they claim will protect us from outside aggression that doesn't come because the neighbors that they say would be aggressors are also being crushed under the heal of their own "heroic" State. Hence you end up with Mutually Fucked States of Merika, I guess. Denmark is supposed to be great, right? But then, why all the suicides? Why is not one single one of all the so-called "great" States of this world not taking a formal stand against TV fakery? Bhutan would, maybe, if "they" (but which "they" always ends up with power?) got their message out? But Buddhists got a mad case of the ultraviolence as well, or so it seems.

The idea of the State is that it prevents violence and chaos, and ... that's about it. When the State starts making greater and greater demands of us or inventing "cold wars" we can assume the leadership is failing or has already failed.

The State also claims to try to "equalize" — in short, make some form of -ism that prevents one class of super aggressors bloating off the blood of the others. Has that ever worked? And if it has, has it ever worked because of anything besides human-level agreements within a community?

Communication is key. It amplifies and enhances the power of uninvolvement.

This thread makes for some very interesting reading. I contribute simply by noting that one of the scholars cited in the None Dare Call It a Conspiracy book is Anthony Sutton. But the book does not appear to reference his book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sut ... tion-5.pdf

daddie_o wrote:This thread makes for some very interesting reading. I contribute simply by noting that one of the scholars cited in the None Dare Call It a Conspiracy book is Anthony Sutton. But the book does not appear to reference his book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sut ... tion-5.pdf

Not to pry or get too off topic, but would you want to try explaining or summarizing what of Sutton's work that you find compelling, and what reservations you might take (if any) in looking at it? Even if just in a sentence or two?

If not, that's fine. I am sure people just appreciate the links to something to look into. But we try to post original research when possible and use documents as supporting information.

In the early days an organization is the vision of the founder. Over time careerists take over the organization. And once the founder is pushed out or retires, the organization seeks only growth. It doesn't matter if the organization is a church, charity, business or government department - they all relentlessly push for more money each year. More money flowing to them means more job security, more promotions, more ability to bring in friends & family, bigger & more prestigious offices, and more pay & benefits for the management. Essentially the management seizes control. Its the saying 'everything is a business'.

Our society understands that for-profit businesses seek this growth, and so the most successful nations create regulated & competitive markets - so that this force is used to society's benefit. A large, well capitalized business like Motorolla, can still go down, if it becomes a bloated and bureaucratic organization that mainly is for the management's benefit. And its shareholders pay the price.

The problem when government tries to run things instead of governing them, is that the government by definition is a monopoly. There is no countervailing force to keep them focused on delivering results. When the government first nationalizes an industry, they take over successful organizations. So the structure, employees, management, mission are all there and functional. But over time, the bureaucracy grows and grows - exponentially. And we see with college as an example, people seem to be getting a lesser education for far more money.

With the buildup of science & technology, something that was produced in 1960, should be dirt cheap and improved by today. So food production in America is relatively free markets, and food is so cheap that the nation struggles with obesity. And this is with the government paying near $100 billion a year for farmers to burn or otherwise not grow food on their land. With computers and the internet education should be dirt cheap. But of course the last thing the colleges want is education to become cheaper - and so they must fight tooth and nail against technology. Its only through the legal power of the state to outlaw competition that they can stop revolutionary ideas. In college's case the government gives them monopolies on degree granting authority, and then for professional licensing requires certain degrees issued by said colleges.

Now where the socialism seems to work quite well, is when the government is simply redistributing money. Social Security distributes $700 billion a year to those who through age or disability cannot work. The overhead of the program is just $7 billion - 1% of the cost! As science & technology advances and as industrial capital builds up, the pie gets bigger allowing ever more money to be redistributed.

For the Soviet Union, they basically had the worst imaginable system. One giant monopoly in control of everything. Without any competition, the Soviet Union not only was very poor in terms of innovation, but every individual monopoly in the economy was rabidly hostile to innovation - think when AT&T had a national monopoly on telecommunications. So the Soviet Union invented nothing. The things we are told they invented like spaceships going to Venus and advanced submarines are of course things no one can actually see and verify. Compare that to Japan, where we are able to buy and use technological products from Japan.

They can say they were producing 20,000 tanks a year - well a country like Italy was producing like 2 million vehicles a year. And its one thing to build 20,000 antiquated tanks, its another to have the whole logistics infrastructure to support them in action. Venezuela found out the hard way that even areas viewed as simple like farming, actually involve thousands of individual businesses, like chemical plants, importing minerals, logistics companies, chemical distributors, machinery repair shops, machinery parts distributors, etc.